STERN
v.
KYC NEWS, INC.

M.D. Fla. | 2025-08-14
No. 3:25-cv-755
District Court, M.D. Florida (2025)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court denied Plaintiff's emergency motion for temporary injunctive relief because he failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 65 and local rules.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to have webpages removed pending resolution of the case. Defendants had …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Local Rule 6.01 Notice To Adverse Party Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Temporary Restraining Order

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rule 6.01 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Under Rule 65, the Court may only “issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party” if "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition[.]" Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff has failed to proffer any evidence that he will suffer irreparable harm before Defendants can be heard in opposition. Indeed, Defendants have already appeared in this action and have filed a motion to dismiss. See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), filed on August 8, 2025. Yet, Plaintiff has made no attempt to explain why notice “should not be required." See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(B).²

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 19) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Consideration of Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 20) is DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 14th day of August, 2025.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

Lc32 Copies to: Pro Se Party Counsel of Record

Footnotes
1 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) on August 12, 2025. The filing of an amended complaint would ordinarily moot all previously filed motions. See Meterlogic, Inc. v. Copier Sols., Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2002). However, as the Motion is due to be denied, the Court does not find it necessary to require Plaintiff to file a renewed motion.
2 To the extent Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, the Motion is also due to be denied. Notably, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Local Rule 6.01, Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), as the Motion does not contain "a precise and verified explanation of the amount and form of the required security," "a supporting legal memorandum,” or “a proposed order.” See Local Rule 6.01.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw